|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The American president is under no obligation whatsoever to follow CIA's advice. And the notion/allegation that an American president could fail to follow British Intelligence's advice is laughable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And the notion/allegation that an American president could fail to follow British Intelligence's advice is laughable. |
Before the invasion Bush et. al. kept trumpeting the idea that "all the international intelligence agencies had evidence" in an effort to make their invasion seem more justified.
So if Bush is willing to use the evidence to support his position, why wouldn't he be willing to consider intelligence that ran counter to his plans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Utterly naive re: politicians and their speeches -- especially those that cite intelligence analyses and estimates (all usually far too complex to reduce to a simple conclusion). Further, people, at all levels of society, almost always include and exclude information to fit their worldview and/or purposes. You should know this. Again, what you wrote sounds very naive, even childlike.
Here are two other questions for you: why did the Senate Intelligence Committee (which saw everything that the W. Bush Administration did), or the British govt, for that matter, not contradict W. Bush's speeches, then? If American and British Intelligence officials are so full of integrity, etc. (that seems, at least, to be how W. Bush's opponents are selling and using them now), why did they not resign in protest at the time and/or go public with their dissent?
Why did all of these groups/people, then, go along with the W. Bush Administration in 2002-2003? Did they not think that America's invading the Middle East was that big a deal...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The American president is under no obligation whatsoever to follow CIA's advice. And the notion/allegation that an American president could fail to follow British Intelligence's advice is laughable. |
Strawman.
| Quote: |
| Utterly naive re: politicians and their speeches -- especially those that cite intelligence analyses and estimates (all usually far too complex to reduce to a simple conclusion). Further, people, at all levels of society, almost always include and exclude information to fit their worldview and/or purposes. You should know this. Again, what you wrote sounds very naive, even childlike. |
Ad hominem. Everybody does it. Ad Hominem.
| Quote: |
| Here are two other questions for you: why did the Senate Intelligence Committee (which saw everything that the W. Bush Administration did), or the British govt, for that matter, not contradict W. Bush's speeches, then? |
Bob Graham took issue with the skewed NIE that, via subsequent investigation, was found to be, well, skewed.
| Quote: |
| When Mr. Graham, then the intelligence committee's chairman, finally saw the report, he asked that its findings be declassified in time for the Senate debate on a resolution to support the war in Iraq. When Mr. Tenet provided a letter to Mr. Graham that included some of the report's findings, Mr. Graham complained that only those findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq had been declassified, while others that raised questions were not. |
| Quote: |
| If American and British Intelligence officials are so full of integrity, etc. (that seems, at least, to be how W. Bush's opponents are selling and using them now), why did they not resign in protest at the time and/or go public with their dissent? |
Well:
| Quote: |
| At the same time, intelligence analysts inside the government continue to complain about the role played over the past year by a special Pentagon unit that provided policy makers with an alternative, and more hawkish, view of intelligence related to Iraq. |
But these are fair questions that a special counsel investigation could delve deeper into. Shall I say could have? History will most likely reveal that Bush could have/should have been impeached, regardless of damning arguments like "Look at Clinton" and "everyone does it".
Either way, this again proves that, if Obama can get elected, it will be a very quiet 4 years in terms of criticism. Pretty much anything thrown at him will be covered by either "Look at Bush" or "Everyone does it".
Quotes used come from here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Intelligence_Estimate#Criticism_of_the_2003_NIE
Further reading:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/nie.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hubba bubba
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spliff wrote: |
| Actually, i don't think we put much, if any, trust in Brit intelligence nowadays. |
Do you really doubt James Bond? REALLY???
Also, Kevin is not the guy from What the Book. Kevin is a repatriated trucker in teh Bayou who likes little boys. Chris, the What the Book guy likes the older gents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
